Dear Minister Hill, As a supporter of your operate in the interest of the global education sector, I was especially pleased with your appointment, which I think will supply a valuable voice for this important market.
I attended The PIE Live Asia Pacific conference today to hear your session on the obstacles facing the sector. I was dissatisfied to find that you appeared to be selective in your information and in my viewpoint did not offer a genuine gratitude for the sector, which has been especially affected by the unforeseeable visa results for students from South Asia.
Your past addresses have typically been characterised by a focus on hope, which I understand is a needed element of political interaction. However, I felt that some of your declarations at this conference were misleading and that the audience was not prepared to defend itself.
I acknowledge that my analysis of your declarations may be incorrect and welcome any corrections.
You have actually indicated that the federal government will not “withdraw” from minimizing net migration which education is the only export market that “takes up beds” adding to the housing crisis.
This is a point that One Country and to some degree the Coalition have been producing over two years. However, we have sufficient information to suggest that much of it is political rhetoric. The housing crisis is much more intricate than that and we can all agree that the issue is not brand-new arrivals however rather individuals on short-term visas making use of the system and declining to leave the nation.
Rather of targeting global students, you ought to even more increase onshore actions to avoid the abuse of trainee visas. You have actually formerly indicated the notorious declaration by the previous Australian Prime Minister, who asked international trainees “unable to money their remain in Australia” to “go home”. While this was a bad minute throughout the pandemic, your current declarations are not considerably various.
Rather of targeting international trainees, you should even more increase onshore actions to avoid the abuse of trainee visas
I– together with the remainder of the sector– stand with your efforts to avoid the abuse of student visas and the onshore “visa hopping” that ought to now be controlled following the restriction on onshore commissions. You have actually pointed out that you have actually been revealed evidence and videos of how some personal service providers are preventing the commission ban by paying in cash or through scholarships. I have likewise seen these videos and promotions, as have others.
Nevertheless, I have actually not heard of any action being taken versus such practices and believe this has actually led to more service providers trying to do the same. I wonder why the department is not setting an example and communicating a clear message when you have shown that the majority of onshore worldwide movements are to these private companies and not to federal government TAFEs, which remain in a state of decrease. Is there a real intent to act?
In the context of politics, it is necessary to consider the full photo.
You have mentioned the visa grant rate for the full year as a way to show that issuance rates have not changed substantially. However during the second half of the fiscal year 2025/26, visa grant rates for numerous source markets fell dramatically without legal change around student visas requirements.
Source: Australian federal government The visa grant rate for students commencing their university research studies in the July 2025 consumption was over 90 %for Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and roughly 80% for those from India. However for students beginning in the February 2026 and July 2026 intakes, the visa grant rate has actually not been close to the 78% you describe as the current rate.
This rate priced estimate by you is the average for all consumptions because July 2025 and can not be taken as the existing ongoing visa grant rate. If the visa grant rate was as high as 90% in July 2025 for Nepal, it must have been significantly lower this year to attain approximately 56%.
Therefore, it is challenging to dismiss the question of reduced visa grants and unpredictability of student visa applications. The sector wishes to maintain the integrity of trainee visas– but we also desire more clearness and objectivity throughout the procedure. Education companies and agents can then concentrate on trainees with a greater likelihood of securing visas and poor trainees will not be taking a gamble with their strategies to study in Australia.
To elaborate on this point, you were selective in mentioning that despite the lower visa grant rate, the very same number of visas were granted to Nepal as last year. This is since there was a significant increase in visa lodgements.
Taking Nepal as an example is therefore a selective comparison. If the same computation is encompassed India, the situation modifications and your assertion stops working. Offshore lodgements for 2025/26 are 38,128 and with a visa success rate of 61.8%, 23,566 visas will be given over the full last (July 2025/26).
To address another statement you made, I comprehend your frustration with the reduced variety of international students participating in federal government TAFEs. I welcome your attention to this sector, which is a considerable factor to Australia’s skill needs and whose graduates have the highest probability of protecting competent immigration.
The price of TAFE courses makes them particularly attractive to international students. I would recommend evaluating the visa grant rate for the TAFE sector, which is often less than 10% in some South Asian markets.
This sector likewise contributes to the labor force for a number of trade and healthcare skills. By addressing these issues, Australia can become more attractive to international students, increasing enrolment and cost. This will likewise decrease circumstances of “course hopping” onshore, as trainees will complete vocational diplomas that improve their employability. Additionally, it is essential to think about the existing post-study work visa standards, which might drawback the TAFE sector.
In response to a concern concerning Australia’s high student visa charge, you suggested that it is a small portion of the student’s total financial investment in Australia, making it suitable and economical. This argument would hold if the visa procedure was more unbiased and predictable. Currently, for some countries, over half of the trainees have gotten visa refusals without any choice to appeal, and the AUD$ 2,500 fee is a sunk expense.
Universities that have bought the marketplace have reimbursed tuition costs, education representatives have actually gone overdue and the visa charge has ended up being another source of profits for the federal government.
In our pursuit of increasing student earnings, we have ignored the trainee who has lost a full year of their life due to the unreliable visa procedure. It may be a better model to levy a two part visa cost where AUD$ 1,000 is charged at application and AUD$ 1,500 is charged when the visa is approved. This is not such a new method to visa fees and has precedence with some other categories.
While many institutions’ NOSC allowances have actually been kept, the reduced visa grant rate and lower lodgements for a number of countries this year raise issues about sustainability.
Minister, as you have actually discussed a number of geo-political aspects are affecting some sending nations. This is an appropriate time for Australia to take a leadership role. While a decrease in student numbers next year might be invited by the opposition and lower political pressures, it is necessary not to attribute this entirely to geo-political elements when resolving conferences next year and rather acknowledge some of the factors I have actually outlined above.
I would have shared the above with you, had we had the ability to fulfill face to face at a scheduled conference in Vijayawada, India. Nevertheless, I have actually now been informed that the conference will not happen. So, I will rather use the travel to inspire our trainee counsellors and maintain their interest in Australia future intakes. I live in hope.
Regards,
Ravi Lochan Singh
(Disclaimer: I am an education representative who often challenges weak arguments and as an Australian and in true Aussie spirit, looks for a fair go. The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily show the official views of any association or organisation.)